Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2013-01/Allow script names as L2 section headings

Feedback

First of all, it seems like 'Han script' will be an L2 header. I think 'Han character' is much better, because that's how they're usually referred to when multiple language are being discussed.

Secondly, I think this is too open. I suggest that a specific list of L2 headers to be allowed be created (it shouldn't be too long), and then we can deal with the rest. I think, for example, that this vote would leave someone feeling like they could create 'Hangeul script' as an L2 header and move entries listed as Korean into that, which I would oppose. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to use "character" because it's possible we will want to add more than just single characters to some of the entries. And we also have to think of the L3 heading, which is already "character" currently. Having ==Han character== ===Character=== would seem a bit strange. Furthermore, having "script" in the name would be more on part with how we treat languages. Something like "Han character" would be akin to having "English noun" as a L2 header. I think it's best to keep the type of term (POS) separate conceptually from the entity it belongs to (language/script). —CodeCat 02:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to address your other concern. I would disagree and I believe common sense among most of our editors would do too. But I don't want to make the vote too specific because if you try to be specific someone will always try to find holes in it. As it is now, we don't argue over whether we should define English in a certain way; it's intuitively understood. I am hoping that the same intuitive sense would cause people to understand that fully-formed words in a certain script really belong to a language, not to a script. If it really does need to be explicit, could you suggest a wording? —CodeCat 02:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And as for making a list of scripts... Presumably we'd want to have a L2 heading for every script in Category:All scripts, but we wouldn't want to treat Traditional and Simplified Han separately, nor Cyrillic and Old Cyrillic. And "Japanese" isn't really a script at all. There may be more of them that should really be treated together but I don't know enough about every script to make an educated decision on every one. So I am not really able to decide on such a list. Do we currently maintain a list of allowed languages, that we could use as a base for a list of allowed scripts? —CodeCat 02:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Re first concern: If we have multiple-character entries under Translingual, I think that's a problem. But I suppose you're right, because of the L3.

Re second concern: But if you don't make it specific enough, people will get scared that a mess will ensue. You could at least make a list of scripts which are not to get their own header, and exceptions like those you noted. I'm not sure what you mean by your last question. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Translingual currently also includes things like 10 which is made up of two characters. While this proposal doesn't concern numeric notations like that (those presumably stay Translingual until further notice), it does demonstrate that a sequence of characters can belong to a certain script and have a certain idiomaticity that warrants an entry, without actually being a word in any language. 1 is a character, but 10 is not, yet both belong to the same "entity" (Hindu-Arabic numerals).

I will make a list of "exceptions", and then people can add more to the list as necessary before the vote starts. My last question was whether there is currently a list of approved and/or prohibited languages, and if so, whether there should be a similar list for scripts. —CodeCat 02:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

When I said character there, I really meant 汉字, but I didn't say that because I don't think you can read Chinese. That is, I think (deprecated template usage) 汉 and (deprecated template usage) 字 should have Han script sections, but (deprecated template usage) 汉字 should not.

Like WT:LANGLIST, you want WT:SCLIST? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 汉字 should not have a ==Han script== entry. How would we phrase that as part of the vote?

WT:LANGLIST is very long and not really all that useful, but it is similar to what I was thinking of. Basically it would be a list of scripts that are approved as L2 headers. —CodeCat 02:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, then add in a provision to the vote and make a list. I'll be glad to help if you tell me how I can. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional exceptions

If they are allowed as L2s, the following should also be exceptions to the rule of being named "foo script":

• {{Mero}} ("Meroitic Hieroglyphs") (but {{Merc}}, "Meroitic Cursive", is probably fine as "Meroitic Cursive script")
• possibly {{Sgnw}} ("SignWriting")
• {{Zmth}} ("Mathematical notation") — but I think mathematical notation should stay ==Translingual==.

- -sche (discuss) 03:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with all of -sche's exceptions, and I think {{Sgnw}} definitely belongs on the list. Secondly, I think that Hiragana, Katakana, and Hangul and/or Korean script should not get L2 headers. The first two should go under 'Japanese', and the last two under 'Korean'. Stuff like 'Indus Valley script' only used by one language also doesn't need its own L2. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

But Japanese isn't a script. If it were, it would include Kanji since that is also used in Japanese. If there is too much disagreement on the list then I will remove it again, since that is what I tried to prevent by not including a list in the first place. —CodeCat 13:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No, here's my point. Go and look at a page like の. Under this proposal, somebody could split that Japanese section into a 'Hiragana script' section and a 'Japanese' section, which is counterproductive and destroys the standard formatting of the entry as a whole. I don't know if the list is inescapable, but I fear that if there isn't a list, this sort of thing will happen, and it will be able to be backed up by intentionally nebulous policy. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that there should be a separate "Hiragana script" section on that page, since Hiragana script is conceptually separate from the Japanese language. I.e. Hiragana does not suddenly lose all of its meaning when you start using it to write another language. In fact, Okinawan is also written in Hiragana, and Katakana is used to write Ainu, but that isn't even relevant. A script and the languages that use that script are different things. —CodeCat 16:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Then I guess I just disagree with you on that point, and there's not a whole lot we can do about that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I can explain a bit more though. A script is a way to represent a language, but while scripts are often geared to one language or a group of languages, there is nothing in principle that prevents scripts being used to represent any language at all. There are countless examples of this both historically and currently: Han being adapted for Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese, Latin being adapted for many European languages as well as many languages around the world, Cyrillic for many non-Slavic languages around the former USSR, Greek for Turkish, Hebrew for Yiddish, Arabic for Persian and Urdu and even Afrikaans! So there is certainly no precedent to suggest that a script is strongly tied to a single language, and scripts used in just one language are nothing more than historical accident. For that reason, I believe that it is preferable to give every script its own header regardless of whether it is used in more than one language, for consistency's sake if nothing else. —CodeCat 17:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I use Hangeul for my conlang, and Cia-Cia does as well. That said, our templates and formatting for Hangeul syllable blocks assume that it will be in the Korean L2 header, and we're creating an unnecessary problem if we want to reorder that. If someone added Turkish in Greek script or Yiddish in Latin script it would be deleted as a "wrong script" entry. Our scripts won't change much, so I think in these cases where it is inexorably tied to a certain language, we ought to go with the current default. I want to specify certain existing Translingual entries with new L2 headers, but not create ones where there was no Translingual header before. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)